Copyright 1992 by the American I

Journal of Educational Psychology

1992, Vol. 84, No. 3, 353-363

Predicting Progress in Beginning Reading:

Dynamic Assessment of Phonemic Awareness
Janet E. Spector
College of Education, University of Maine

This study investigates the ability of a dynamic measure of phonemic awareness to predict
progress in beginning reading. Thirty-eight kindergarteners who were nonreaders were assessed
in the fall on receptive vocabulary, letter and word recognition, invented spelling, phoneme
segmentation, phoneme deletion, and dynamic phoneme segmentation. They were retested near
the end of the school year on reading, spelling, and phonemic awareness. The results of the
multiple-regression analyses supported the hypothesis that dynamic assessment enhances the
predictive utility of a phonemic awareness measure. Performance on dynamic phoneme segmen-
tation was the best predictor of end-of-year reading scores and of growth in phonemic awareness.
The study demonstrates the applicability of principles of dynamic assessment to the measurement
of phonemic awareness and provides further evidence regarding the relationship between pho-
nemic awareness and reading acquisition.

This study investigates the ability of a dynamic measure of
phonemic awareness to predict progress in beginning reading.
The dynamic approach was compared with a more conven-
tional static approach to assessing phonemic awareness. I
hypothesized that the dynamic measure would more accu-
rately predict progress in beginning reading than would a
static measure. The study was influenced by theory and
research on two questions: (a) the relationship between pho-
nemic awareness and reading acquisition and (b) the effec-
tiveness of dynamic versus static assessment.
Phonemic Awareness and Reading Acquisition
One of the most consistent relationships to emerge from
the past decade of research on reading is the relationship
between phonemic awareness and reading acquisition (see
reviews by Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1979; Golinkoff, 1978; Jorm
& Share, 1983; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Wagner &
Torgesen, 1987; Williams, 1984). Although there is some
variation across studies in the definition of phonemic aware-
ness, the term generally is used to denote the ability to perceive
spoken words as a sequence of sounds (Lewkowicz, 1980).
Phonemic awareness has been measured by performance on
a wide range of tasks, including rhyming (e.g., Calfee, Chap-
man, & Venezky, 1972); isolating beginning, medial, and
ending sounds (e.g., Williams, 1980); breaking words into
their component sounds (e.g., Fox & Routh, 1975; Goldstein,
1976; Helfgott, 1976); saying words with target sounds deleted
This article is based in part on a paper presented in April 1990 at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion in Boston.
I am indebted to Pamela Schutz for enabling data collection; the
principal, teachers, and students of Pendleton Street School for their
participation in the study; and Ted Coladarci and the anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Janet E. Spector, College of Education, Shibles Hall, University of
Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-0155.
(e.g., Bruce, 1964; Rosner & Simon, 1971); and producing
invented spellings (e.g., Mann, Tobin, & Wilson, 1987; Morris
& Perney, 1984; Read, 1971).
The results of both correlational and experimental studies
generally have indicated that students who enter reading
instruction unable to perform phonemic awareness tasks ex-
perience less success in reading than students who score high
in phonemic awareness when instruction commences (e.g.,
Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Calfee, Lindamood, & Lindamood,
1973; Juel, 1988; Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, & Carter,
1974; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Share, Jorm,
Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Stanovich, Cunningham, &
Cramer, 1984; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985; Vellutino & Scan-
Ion, 1987). From a theoretical perspective, this finding is
consistent with models of reading acquisition that emphasize
the critical role of insight into the alphabetic principle during
the initial stages of learning how to read (e.g., Elkonin, 1973;
Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Liberman, 1973; Perfetti, 1985;
Rozin & Gleitman, 1977). That is, children must realize that
letters stand for sounds and when combined, yield words.
Previous research on phonemic awareness has identified
tasks that appear to be reliable and valid predictors of reading
progress. Yopp (1988), for example, identified two tasks from
a battery of 10 phonemic awareness tests that together ac-
counted for 58% of the variance in scores on a learning test
designed to simulate the learning-to-read process. The capac-
ity of phonemic awareness tests to predict aspects of reading
progress suggests that such tests could be used to identify
children who would benefit from instructional intervention
(Share etal., 1984).
A possible obstacle to practical application, however, is the
unfamiliarity and complexity of many phonemic awareness
tasks. Whereas poor performance on a phoneme segmentation
task might indicate low phonemic awareness, it might also
reflect the child's lack of understanding of task requirements
or difficulty in meeting ancillary task demands. For example,
some researchers have asked children to count the number of
sounds in a spoken word and then to use a pencil or dowel to
make a corresponding number of taps (e.g., Liberman et al.,

353
 354 JANET E. SPECTOR
1974). Poor performance might indicate difficulty in seg-
menting the spoken word, but it might also reflect difficulty
in counting the sounds, attending to task instructions, or
maintaining the one-to-one correspondence between sounds
and taps. Thus, a limitation of conventional tests of phonemic
awareness is that they yield too many false negatives, that is,
students who are unable to perform the experimental task but
who actually possess (or could easily acquire) the ability that
the task is designed to measure. Dynamic assessment is an
approach that might be useful in eliminating these false
negatives.
Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment is a general term used to describe a
variety of evaluation approaches that emphasize the processes,
in addition to the products, of assessment (see reviews by
Campione, 1989; Lidz, 1981, 1987). These approaches in-
clude learning potential assessment (e.g., Budoff, 1987a,
1987b; Feuerstein, 1979); testing-the-limits procedures (Carl-
son & Wiedl, 1978, 1979); mediated assessment (e.g., Brans-
ford, Delclos, Vye, Burns, & Hasselbring, 1987; Burns, 1985);
and assisted learning and transfer (e.g., Campione, Brown,
Ferrara, Jones, & Steinberg, 1985).
To obtain information about responsiveness to instruction,
dynamic approaches require the interaction between tester
and student. When a student has difficulty solving a problem
or answering a question, the tester attempts to move the
student from failure to success by modifying the format,
providing additional examples or trials, modeling an appro-
priate strategy for success, or offering increasingly more direct
cues or prompts. The intensity of the dynamic intervention
varies across approaches, ranging from brief, standardized
prompts (e.g., testing the limits) to complex, individualized
probes (e.g., learning potential assessment).
Advocates of dynamic assessment characterize traditional
tests as static: A student's failure to solve a problem or answer
a question is viewed merely as an indicator of where the
student stands on some underlying ability scale. However,
although the student's performance may accurately reflect
previous achievement, it is not necessarily predictive of how
the student will perform in the future (Campione & Brown,
1985; Feuerstein, 1979). That is, although a student might
lack the skill in question at the time of testing, with minimal
instruction the same student might realize substantial gains.
In addition, because static approaches typically provide little
feedback or practice prior to testing, failure often reflects
children's lack of understanding of the instructions more than
it reflects their ability to perform the task.
Most dynamic assessment approaches are linked theoreti-
cally to Vygotsky's (1935/1978) views of learning and devel-
opment. In his work, Vygotsky emphasized the critical role
in learning of children's social interaction with adults. The
adult acts as an expert model in demonstrating how to solve
a problem or perform a particular task. Over time, the child
takes on increasing responsibility for task performance, and
the adult provides help only when needed. Eventually, the
child internalizes the problem-solving routine and is able to
perform the task independently.
Traditional tests assess only two states: unaided success and
failure. That is, the child either answers a question correctly,
without prompts or cues from the examiner, or the child is
considered to fail the item. From a Vygotskian perspective,
however, the child may be somewhere in between these two
states: unable to perform the task independently but able to
achieve success with minimal assistance. Vygotsky (1935/
1978) considered this in-between state to be the zone of
proximal development: "the distance between the actual de-
velopmental level as determined by independent problem-
solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collabo-
ration with more capable peers" (p. 85).
Consider, for example, two children who earn the same low
score on a traditional phoneme segmentation test that requires
students to articulate each of the sounds that they hear in a
word. With minimal instruction, the first child experiences
significant growth in performance, whereas the second child
shows little improvement. Although the two children received
the same score initially, different degrees of future success
might be predicted for the two children in tasks that presume
phonemic awareness.
In the present study, I developed a dynamic measure that
assesses the ability of kindergarten children to perform a
phonemic awareness task when given supportive prompts and
cues. On the basis of previous research on dynamic assessment
(e.g., Budoff, 1987a, 1987b; Campione et al., 1985; Carlson
& Wiedl, 1979; Embretson, 1987; Ferrara, Brown, & Cam-
pione, 1986), I hypothesized that the dynamic measure would
more accurately predict future progress in reading than would
comparable static measures. Also considered was the ability
of the dynamic measure to forecast growth in phonemic
awareness. I expected the dynamic measure to be a better
predictor of phonemic awareness at the end of the kindergar-
ten year than the traditional static measures of phonemic
awareness.
Method
Subjects
In October, parents of students enrolled in a public school kinder-
garten program received a letter from the school requesting permis-
sion for their child to participate in a study of beginning reading. Of
74 students, 52 (70%) returned signed consent forms. The school,
located in a small New England town, serves a predominantly middle-
class, White population. All students spoke English as afirstlanguage.
Given the reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and
reading acquisition, only those children who were unable to read any
words on the San Diego Quick Assessment List (LaPray & Ross,
1969) in the fall of the kindergarten year were included in the study.
In addition, students who were absent during any of the fall or spring
testing sessions were excluded from the analysis. This resulted in a
final sample of 38 students. The mean age of children at the beginning
of the study was 5 years, 11 months.
Procedure
Data for the study were collected in November and May of the
kindergarten year. Testing was conducted at the school and was
 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
completed in three 15- to 20-min sessions. Children were assessed
individually in the fall on letter and word recognition (San Diego
Quick Assessment List; LaPray & Ross, 1969), invented spelling
(Mann, Tobin, & Wilson, 1987), phoneme segmentation (Yopp,
1988), phoneme deletion (Bruce, 1964), and dynamic phoneme seg-
mentation (with a measure designed for this study). Students were
assessed again in the spring on all measures except dynamic phoneme
segmentation. The fall tests were administered in two sessions ap-
proximately 1 week apart. In Session 1, students completed phoneme
segmentation, phoneme deletion, and invented spelling. Session 2
covered dynamic assessment and word recognition. Spring testing
required only one session. The order in which the tasks were admin-
istered was fixed. In the fall, dynamic assessment was completed last
to eliminate the possibility that the instructional prompts and cues
would influence performance on the other measures. This design
feature, however, precluded investigation of possible order effects, a
limitation that must be considered in interpreting the results.
Measures
I used four phonemic awareness tasks: phoneme segmentation,
dynamic phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and invented
spelling. The Yopp-Singer phoneme segmentation (Yopp, 1988) and
Bruce Word Analysis Test (1964) were selected on the basis of Yopp's
study of the reliability and validity of 10 phonemic awareness meas-
ures. In Yopp's study, the results of a factor analysis indicated that
phonemic awareness comprises two factors: simple phonemic aware-
ness and complex phonemic awareness. In that study the Yopp-
Singer phoneme segmentation test provided the most reliable measure
of simple phonemic awareness, and the Bruce Word Analysis Test
provided the most reliable measure of complex phonemic awareness
(rs = .95 and .92, respectively). Together, the two measures accounted
for 58% of the variance in the rate at which students learned to
decode new words. Invented spelling was included as an additional
indicator of phonemic awareness on the basis of previous research
linking invented spelling with phonemic awareness (Chomsky, 1971,
1979; Ehri, 1989; Ehri & Wilce, 1980, 1987a, 1987b; Liberman,
Rubin, Duques, & Carlisle, 1985; Mann etal., 1987; Morris &Perney,
1984; Read, 1971, 1986). Each of these measures is described below.
Phoneme segmentation. On the Yopp-Singer phoneme segmen-
tation test, subjects were asked to pronounce, in order, each of the
sounds in a word. Four examples were given at the beginning of the
test to familiarize the student with the task. Feedback was given on
the four trial items, but no feedback was given for the remaining 22
words on the test. The present administration procedure differs
somewhat from that of Yopp (1988), who provided feedback regard-
ing the correct response after each item. In the present study, feedback
was withheld to distinguish more clearly between the static phoneme
segmentation test and the dynamic version of the same task.
Using Yopp's (1988) approach, I scored the test for number of
words segmented correctly. The maximum score possible was 22. The
majority of students (n = 25) scored zero in the fall on this measure.
To alleviate the substantial floor effect and to make the scaling more
similar to that used during dynamic assessment, I awarded points for
each sound in a word that was segmented correctly. The maximum
score possible for the revised measure was 57, and the correlation
between the original and the revised fall measures was .88 (p < .001).
Not surprisingly the two scoring procedures yielded equivalent
conclusions regarding the benefits of dynamic assessment. Therefore,
I chose to report fall phoneme segmentation results only for the
revised measure. However, because of the manner in which students'
responses were recorded in the spring, it was not possible to score
spring data for number of sounds correctly segmented. Spring pho-
355
neme segmentation, therefore, is reported as number of words seg-
mented correctly.
Dynamic assessment. The dynamic assessment procedure paral-
leled the Yopp-Singer task but provided corrective feedback and
increasingly supportive prompts and cues when children were unable
to segment a word correctly. The tester used the following series of
prompts each time a child was unable to segment a word:
Prompt 1: pronouncing the target word slowly;
Prompt 2: asking the child to identify the first sound of the
word;
Prompt 3: cuing the child with the first sound;
Prompt 4: cuing the child with the number of sounds in the
word;
Prompt 5: modeling segmentation using pennies placed in
squares to represent the number of sounds in the
word;
Prompt 6: modeling segmentation as above, but working hand
over hand with the child while pronouncing the seg-
ments;
Prompt 7: repeating Prompt 6.
Each child attempted a maximum of 12 items: four consonant-
vowel (CV) words (i.e., say, pie, we, two), four vowel-consonant (VC)
words (i.e., age, eat, egg, if), and four consonant-vowel-consonant
(CVC) words (i.e., leg, feet, page, rice). The intent was to select
familiar words that included a range of vowel and consonant sounds.
One student who, on the first 2 items, was unable to produce a correct
segmentation after all seven prompts (including the last three
prompts, which required imitation only) was discontinued on the
task and received a total score of zero. (The dynamic assessment
script is presented in the Appendix.)
Scores on dynamic phoneme segmentation indicate the degree of
independence that the child achieved in performing the segmentation
task. Each item was scored as follows: 6 = correct response with no
prompts required; 5 = correct response after Prompt 1; 4 = correct
response after Prompt 2; 3 = correct response after Prompt 3; 2 =
correct response after Prompt 4; 1 = correct response after Prompt
5; and 0 = no correct response.
Performance on the last two imitation trials (i.e., Prompts 6 and
7) did not contribute to scores. Initially, I created a second dynamic
measure that assigned points for successful second and third trials at
imitation. This measure was scored on an 8-point scale, with a score
of 8 indicating correct response without prompting and a score of 1
indicating correct response on the third imitation attempt. Because
the two measures yielded equivalent results on all analyses reported
below, I include here only the results for the 6-point scale. The
maximum score possible on the dynamic measure was 72.
The present approach to dynamic assessment has both similarities
to and differences from other dynamic approaches. These similarities
and differences can be described in terms of three general dimensions
identified by Campione (1989): focus, interaction, and target (see
Campione, 1989, for examples of studies that differ on these dimen-
sions).
Focus refers to the way in which the researcher operationalizes the
processes and effects of dynamic assessment. Whereas most dynamic
approaches involve a test-train-test paradigm, investigators differ
with respect to the measures they derive. Three types of measures
predominate: (a) measures of change from pretest to posttest, (b)
measures of posttest performance, and (c) measures of performance
during the dynamic assessment itself. This study followed the third
approach. The dynamic phoneme segmentation measure indicated
the degree of independence the student achieved during dynamic
assessment. I also created a second measure that reflected change in
performance from the static to the dynamic condition. I obtained
this measure by regressing the fall dynamic measure on static pho-
 356 JANET E. SPECTOR
neme segmentation. The resulting residualized gain reflects variability
in dynamic scores that is independent of static performance.
Interaction describes the nature of the interaction between the
examiner and the student during dynamic assessment. The interac-
tion is either standardized (i.e., all students receive the same prompts
or cues) or individualized. The latter condition is clinical; the exam-
iner addresses specific obstacles to success that student responses
reveal. This study followed the standardized approach. I used a fixed
set of prompts that were administered to all students in the same
order. As can be seen above, success on initial prompts reflects need
for minimal adult intervention, whereas success on later prompts
indicates need for more extensive adult help in performing the task.
In Campione's taxonomy, target refers to the nature of the skills
that are tested. Early work on dynamic assessment (e.g., Budoff, 1967;
Feuerstein, 1979) focused on domain-general skills associated with
cognitive ability. Examples of tasks that have been studied include
Raven's (1956) Coloured Progressive Matrices, Kohs's (1923) Block
Design Task, and the Representational Stencil Design Task (Arthur,
1947). In the past few years, however, researchers have advocated use
of academically relevant tasks (Bransford et al., 1987; Campione,
1989; Campione & Brown, 1987). Consistent with this recommen-
dation, the present study has as its target a domain-specific skill that
influences reading acquisition.
Phoneme deletion. Bruce's (1964) Word Analysis Test assesses
the student's ability to delete phonemes from words. The test com-
prises 33 words that vary in length (30 are one-syllable words and 3
are multisyllable words). Bruce initially selected the words for their
familiarity. The test requires children to say the word that remains
after a particular sound is deleted from a stimulus word (e.g., "What
word would be left if / j / were taken away from the beginning of
jamV). The positions in the words of the sound to be deleted are
equally divided between beginning, middle, and end. In the present
study, children completed four sample items prior to the test. I
provided corrective feedback on sample items only. Given the length
of the test and its difficulty for beginning kindergarteners, I discontin-
ued testing if students were unsuccessful on the first 15 words and
recorded a score of zero. Performance on the test was scored as
number of words correct.
Invented spelling. Invented spelling requires students to represent
in writing the sound structure of words. To assess this ability, I used
a measure developed by Mann et al. (1987) in their study of the
relationship between invented spelling and phonemic awareness. The
test requires students to write the following words: red, name, bed,
lady, fish, men, boat, girl, color, angry, thank you, people, dog, and
boy. Mann et al. selected these words for their familiarity to kinder-
garten students and because each presents the opportunity for stu-
dents to make "errors" that are characteristic of children who have
not yet learned how to read (e.g., "nam" for name, "ppl" for people).
Each item contains one or more of the following elements: (a) a letter
name within the word (e.g., "d" in lady) or (b) a short vowel, a nasal,
a liquid, or a consonant represented by a digraph (e.g., "e" in bed,
"nk" in thank you, "r" and "1" in girl, "sh" in fish). Following Mann
et al.'s instructions, I encouraged students to invent spellings for
words that they did not know and to write any of the sounds in a
word if they did not know the whole word.
Mann et al. (1987) scored student performance on the spelling task
for phonetic equivalence. That is, they rated each response on a scale
to reflect its correspondence to the phonetic structure of the word: 4
= correct spelling; 3 = preconventional response that accurately
represents the phonological structure of the word; 2 = preconven-
tional response of two or more letters that reflects at least part of the
phonological structure of the word; 1 = single-letter response that
represents the initial sound of the word; 0.5 = single-letter response
that represents a sound in the word other than the initial consonant;
and 0 = no response or a response that does not represent any sounds
in the word.
Because of the focus in this study on phonemic awareness, I
eliminated the distinction between conventionally correct and pho-
netically equivalent responses. That is, I reduced the scale from 0-4
to 0-3 by awarding 3 points to both correct spellings and preconven-
tional responses that accurately represented the phonemic structure
of the word. The highest possible score on this measure was 42. The
correlation between scores on the 0-3 scale used in this study and
scores on Mann et al.'s (1987) original 0-4 scale was .99. Although
Mann et al. did not report information about the reliability of their
measure, I assessed the reliability of the scoring system by asking two
judges to rate the same 10 protocols. Agreement between the two
scorers was 90%.
Word recognition. The San Diego Quick Assessment List (LaPray
& Ross, 1969) includes a series of graded word lists beginning at the
preprimer level. The words on the lists are typical of words that
students encounter in instructional materials at different reading
levels. As is the case with most informal reading inventories, the
authors provided no information regarding reliability. Evidence of
content validity is derived by examining the overlap between words
on the test and words typically presented in basal reading material at
different levels.
Students in the present study were asked to read word lists arranged
in order of increasing difficulty. Testing was discontinued when a
student was unable to read any of the words on a particular list. In
practice, only the preprimer, primer, and first-grade lists were used
because of the limited reading skills of the kindergarten subjects. The
test was scored for number correct. The maximum score possible on
each word list was 10, and the highest possible score across all three
lists was 30.
Prior to reading the graded word lists, students also completed a
letter recognition task that required them to state the names of 10
letters. Scores on letter recognition reflected the number of letters
that were correctly named.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). The stu-
dents' PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) results were available in school
records. The test had been administered by school personnel in the
month prior to the reading and phonemic awareness testing. The
PPVT-R, a test of receptive vocabulary, has frequently been used in
research on phonemic awareness as a measure of verbal ability. I
included it in the present study to control for individual differences
in verbal ability. At ages 5 years through 6 years, 11 months (the age
levels at which subjects in the present study were tested), split-half
reliability coefficients ranged from .73 to .84. Alternate-forms relia-
bility is estimated to range from .78 to .80 and from .60 to .67 on
immediate test-retest and delayed test-retest, respectively (Dunn &
Dunn, 1981).
Results
The data were analyzed to investigate the predictive ability
of the dynamic phoneme segmentation measure. I used or-
dinary least squares regression to identify the fall measure
that best predicted spring phonemic awareness and spring
reading. This approach required separate analyses, one for
each of the four dependent measures administered in the
spring: phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, invented
spelling, and word recognition. The independent variables in
each analysis were the following: fall performance on pho-
neme segmentation (static and dynamic measures), phoneme
deletion, invented spelling, and PPVT-R. I also used stepwise
regression to identify the contribution of the dynamic mea-
sure, beyond that explained by general ability (i.e., PPVT-R)
and the static measure of phoneme segmentation. Alpha was
set at .05 throughout.
 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations for each measure are pre-
sented in Table 1. In the fall, most of the children had
considerable difficulty with the phoneme deletion and static
phonemic segmentation tasks. Mean scores on phoneme dele-
tion indicated that the average student responded correctly to
only 1 or 2 words; many students did not respond correctly
to any of the items on the task. Examination of fall scores on
the phoneme segmentation task suggests that although the
average student correctly segmented only 1 or 2 words on the
test, the typical student was able to segment correctly at least
one sound for half of the words. Similarly, although most
students failed to spell correctly any words on the spelling test
in the fall, the majority of students were able to produce letters
to represent at least one of the sounds in the words.
Examination of fall and spring scores reveals that student
performance improved on all the phonemic awareness tasks
over the course of the year. The increase in accuracy on
phoneme segmentation was considerably greater than that for
phoneme deletion. On average, students progressed from 12%
accuracy in the number of words segmented correctly in the
fall to 50% accuracy in the spring on phoneme segmentation,
whereas accuracy on phoneme deletion only increased from
5% to 12%.
Scores on word recognition also improved from fall to
spring. In the fall, none of the students were able to identify
any of the words on the preprimer, primer, orfirst-gradelists,
whereas by spring, only one third of the students still scored
zero on word recognition. The average student was able to
identify 30% of the words on the preprimer list, and the
highest scoring students were able to read all the words on the
preprimer list and 1 or 2 words on the primer list.
Correlations Among Measures
Whereas students differed in their ability to perform each
of the phonemic awareness tasks, there were significant cor-
relations among all four of the fall phonemic awareness
measures (i.e., phoneme deletion, phoneme segmentation,
invented spelling, and dynamic phoneme segmentation). The
phonemic measures generally correlated more highly with
each other than they did with the PPVT-R, a pattern that
Table 1
Mean Scores on Fall and Spring Measures
Maximum
Measure score
PPVT-R
Phoneme segmentation
No. words correct 22
No. sounds correct 57
Phoneme deletion 33
Invented spelling 42
San Diego Quick Assessment List
Letter recognition 10
Word recognition 30
Dynamic phoneme segmentation 56
Note. N = 38. PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Dashes indicate not available.
357
supports the construct validity of the four phonemic aware-
ness measures (see Table 2).
I also examined the strength of the correlations among the
four phonemic awareness tasks. The correlations between the
dynamic measure and each of the three static measures were
descriptively greater than the correlations among the three
static measures themselves. That is, the dynamic measure
appears to have more in common with each of the three static
measures of phonemic awareness than the three static meas-
ures have in common with each other.
Given the focus of the study on prediction, I was particu-
larly interested in examining the simple correlations between
the fall and spring measures. There were significant positive
correlations between fall and spring phonemic awareness
measures and between phonemic awareness scores and spring
reading performance (see Table 2). Among all fall measures-
including the PPVT-R—dynamic phoneme segmentation was
the variable that correlated most highly with spring reading
scores and with spring performance on the phonemic aware-
ness measures.
A secondary question regarding fall-to-spring correlations
concerned the relationship between benefit from the dynamic
assessment condition and growth in word recognition. That
is, Was improvement in performance from static to dynamic
assessment associated with gains in reading during the second
half of kindergarten? I addressed this question using a measure
of residualized gain that I created by regressing dynamic
phoneme segmentation on static phoneme segmentation
scores. The correlation between residualized gain and spring
word recognition indicated that gain from static to dynamic
assessment was, in fact, positively associated with growth in
word recognition (r = .43, p < .01). In other words, students
who showed the most growth in word recognition from fall
to spring tended to be those who were helped most by the
prompts and cues provided during dynamic assessment. This
result is not surprising, given the high correlation between
residualized gain and the original dynamic segmentation mea-
sure ( r = .78, p< .01).
Among the three static phonemic awareness measures (i.e.,
phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and invented
spelling), spring scores correlated more highly with spring
reading than did fall scores. This result might be explained by
the temporal factor: One generally expects two measures given
at the same time to correlate more highly with each other
Fall Spring
M SD M SD
100.89 13.81
2.68 4.75 11.39 8.18
13.71 13.28
1.58 2.96 3.55 5.68
10.67 10.92 26.65 11.76
8.50 2.47 9.53 1.39
0.00 0.00 3.00 3.36
23.24 19.16 — —
 358 JANET E. SPECTOR

Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Fall and Spring Measures
Fall Spring
Measure
Fall
l.DYN .62** .43** .60** .11 51** .66** .54** .60**
2. PS — .37* .44** .09 .31* .62** .40*
3. PD .38*
— .16 .34* .34* .45** .28 .23
4. IS — .10 .41** .46** .49**
5. PPVT-R .55**
— .51** -.02 .39* .27*
Spring
6. PS .36* .61** .46**
7. PD — .37* .67**
8. IS
9. WR — .62**

Note. N==3S. DYN =» dynamic phoneme segmentation; PS = phoneme segmentation; PD = phoneme

deletion; IS = invented spelling; PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised- WR = San
Diego Quick Assessment List word recognition.
* p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed.

than measures given at different times. The increase from fall ing, and PPVT-R. I entered fall measures into the regression
to spring in the magnitude of correlations between phonemic equation simultaneously. The results of the analysis are listed
awareness and reading might also result from the reciprocal in Table 3.
nature of the relationship between phonemic awareness and As can be seen in Table 3, the dynamic measure accounted
reading: Phonemic awareness facilitates reading acquisition, for a significant portion of the variance in two of the spring
and subsequent progress in reading itself promotes increased phonemic awareness tests. Along with the PPVT-R, it pre-
phonemic awareness. dicted spring phoneme segmentation. It also forecasted spring
However, these simple correlations do not take into account phoneme deletion, together with fall static segmentation and
the confounding influences among the phonemic awareness deletion. As reflected by the beta values in Table 3, for each
measures. Multiple regression analyses, described below, per- standard deviation increase in dynamic segmentation per-
mitted an estimate of the independent effects of each fall formance, scores on the spring dependent measures increased
variable, holding constant the effects of all remaining vari- by approximately one third of a standard deviation.
ables.
I also approached the analysis in a stepwise fashion. The
purpose of the second analysis was to examine the increment
Multiple Regression in explained variance associated with the entry of the dynamic
measure when PPVT-R and the static version of phoneme
Spring phonemic awareness. To investigate the ability of segmentation were already in the equation. I found that the
the dynamic measure to predict phonemic awareness in the dynamic measure accounted for an additional 12% to 14%
spring, each of the spring phonemic awareness variables (i.e., of the variance in the spring measures, even after entering
phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and invented PPVT-R and the static measure of phoneme segmentation:
spelling) was separately regressed on fall phoneme segmenta- for spring phoneme segmentation, F(l, 34) = 9.27, p < .01;
tion (static and dynamic), phoneme deletion, invented spell- for spring phoneme deletion, F(l, 34) = 9.23, p < .01; and
Table 3
Multiple Regression With Fall Measures Used to Predict Spring Phonemic
Awareness Scores
Spring phonemic awareness measure
IS PD PS
Fall
predictor B B t B t
DYN .21 .34 1.68 .10 .33 1.84* .17 .40 2.09*
PPVT-R .29 .34 2.45** -.07 -.17 -1.36 .27 .46 3.41**
IS .24 .22 1.33 .06 .11 0.45 .11 .15 0.95
PD -.18 -.05 -0.30 .47 .25 1.75* .03 .01 0.07
PS .07 .08 0.49 .12 .29 1.92* -.03 -.05 -0.29
R1 .45 .56 .49
Note. N = 38. IS = invented spelling; PD = phoneme deletion. PS = phoneme segmentation- DYN =
dynamic phoneme segmentation; PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. For all t tests,
df= 32.
* p < .05, one-tailed. ** p< .01, one-tailed.
 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
for spring invented spelling, F(l, 34) = 6.76, p < .05. In each
of the analyses, the increment in explained variance corre-
sponds to roughly one third of the total amount of variance
accounted for by all three independent variables combined.
Spring reading performance. Two analyses assessed the
ability of the dynamic measure to predict spring reading
scores. I used the same approach as was reported above for
examining spring phonemic awareness. That is, I first entered
fall scores into the equation simultaneously to estimate the
contribution of each independent variable, holding constant
the effects of the other predictors. In this analysis, independent
variables were fall phoneme segmentation (static and dynamic
versions), phoneme deletion, invented spelling, and PPVT-R.
I then used stepwise regression to investigate the unique
contribution of the dynamic measure, above and beyond that
of general verbal ability (i.e., PPVT-R) and static segmenta-
tion performance. In both analyses, the dependent measure
was word recognition.
As can be seen in Table 4, performance on the dynamic
version of the phoneme segmentation task was the only
significant predictor of word recognition performance at the
end of kindergarten. For each standard deviation increase in
performance on the dynamic measure, end-of-year reading
performance increased by approximately one half standard
deviation (/? = .47).
The second analysis found that performance on the dy-
namic measure accounted for an additional 21 % of the vari-
ance in word recognition scores after entering PPVT-R and
the static phoneme segmentation measure, F(l, 34) = 11.84,
p < .01. The increment in explained variance corresponds to
roughly one half of the total variance accounted for by all
three independent variables combined.
The dynamic measure in the previous analyses indicates
degree of independence achieved during dynamic assessment.
To further investigate the relationship between responsiveness
to dynamic assessment and growth in reading, I repeated the
regression of spring word recognition on fall phoneme aware-
ness variables and the PPVT-R, substituting a measure of
residualized gain (described previously) for the original dy-
namic phoneme segmentation variable.
Table 4
Multiple Regression With Fall Measures Used to Predict
End-of-Year Word Recognition Scores
End-of-year word
recognition
Fall measure B t
Dynamic phoneme segmentation .08 .47 2.37*
PPVT-R .05 .22 1.63
Invented spelling .08 .27 1.64
Phoneme deletion -.10 -.09 -0.56
Phoneme segmentation -.01 -.02 -0.10
R2 .46
Note. N = 38. PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Re-
vised. Word recognition was measured with the San Diego Quick
Assessment List word recognition task. For all t tests, df= 32.
• p< .05, one-tailed.
359
The results of this analysis were almost indistinguishable
from those depicted in Table 4: Gain from static to dynamic
assessment was the best predictor of spring word recognition,
((32) = 2.38, p < .01. Even after entering static phoneme
segmentation and the PPVT-R in a stepwise fashion, dynamic
gain accounted for an additional 21 % of the variance in spring
reading scores, F{\, 34) = 11.84, p < .01, which is approxi-
mately one half the variance accounted for by all three meas-
ures combined.
Discussion
The results of the present study support the hypothesis that
dynamic assessment enhances the predictive utility of a mea-
sure of phonemic awareness. Dynamic phoneme segmenta-
tion was a better predictor of kindergarten reading progress
than any of the three static measures of phonemic awareness:
phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and invented
spelling. The dynamic measure was also a better predictor of
word recognition than the PPVT-R, a measure that is often
used to estimate verbal ability. Similarly, the dynamic mea-
sure accounted for more variance in spring phonemic aware-
ness than did any of the other fall phonemic awareness
measures. These results demonstrate the applicability of the
principles of dynamic assessment to measurement of pho-
nemic awareness and add to the ever-growing corpus of
research on the relationship between phonemic awareness
and reading acquisition.
Interpretive Considerations
Two interpretive issues are considered: (a) the influence of
the distribution of word recognition scores on the results
reported above and (b) possible explanations for the effective-
ness of the dynamic measure.
Distribution of scores on word recognition. In the spring,
13 students were still unable to read any words on the word
recognition test. Conceptually, this result is logical; the stu-
dents who did not progress in word recognition were also the
lowest scorers on dynamic segmentation. Their lack of growth
in word recognition thus supports the diagnostic value of the
dynamic measure.
Statistically, however, the distribution of word recognition
scores raises the possibility of spuriously high correlations
between word recognition and dynamic phoneme segmenta-
tion. To address this concern, I recomputed the correlation
between fall dynamic phoneme segmentation and spring word
recognition, eliminating from analysis the 13 students who
scored zero on word recognition. Although the correlation
dropped from .60 to .43 in the reduced sample (n = 25), the
magnitude of the latter coefficient remains consistent with
my original conclusion regarding the positive relationship
between dynamic phoneme segmentation and word recogni-
tion.
I also replicated the word-recognition regression analysis
reported above, using a combined measure of letter and word
recognition. The dependent measure in this analysis reflected
number correct across both the letter and word recognition
subtests of the San Diego Quick Assessment List (the distri-
360 JANET E. SPECTOR
bution of scores on this variable was approximately normal).
Because the majority of subjects were at ceiling on letter
recognition—30 students scored 10 (100%) and 6 subjects
scored 9 (90%)—the combined measure served only to spread
out the scores of the 13 students who scored zero on word
recognition. The regression results for the combined letter-
word recognition measure were equivalent to those obtained
for word recognition: Dynamic phoneme segmentation was
the single best predictor of letter-word recognition, /(32) =
2.67, p < .01, 0 = .51, followed by PPVT-R, t(32) = 2.17, p
< .05, p = .28, and invented spelling, f(32) = 1.78, p < .05,
one-tailed, p = .28.
In short, the results reported above do not appear to be an
artifact of the distribution of scores on word recognition. Even
when problematic cases were removed or when alternate
versions of a reading recognition measure were used, the
dynamic measure consistently emerged as the best predictor
of reading progress.
Explanations for dynamic effects. What accounts for the
predictive superiority of the dynamic phoneme segmentation
measure? Embretson (1987) described three possible goals of
dynamic assessment: "(a) improving ability estimates; (b)
assessing new constructs, such as modifiability of perform-
ance; and (c) improving true ability" (p. 167). Embretson's
framework is useful in delineating plausible explanations for
the effectiveness of the dynamic assessment measure used in
this study. The dynamic measure (a) provided a better esti-
mate of phonemic segmentation ability than did the static
measures of phonemic awareness; (b) assessed a different
ability than did the static measure (i.e., responsiveness to
phonemic awareness training); and (c) increased students'
phonemic awareness. I examine below the tenability of each
possibility.
The first explanation is that the dynamic measure was
simply a more sensitive indicator of phonemic awareness than
any of the other three phonemic awareness measures. Exam-
ination of the distribution of scores on phoneme deletion
provides some support for this interpretation. More specifi-
cally, a significant floor effect compromised the ability of this
measure to predict spring reading performance. In the fall,
many students were unable to respond correctly to any of the
items on the task. The dynamic measure had the effect of
spreading out the scores of those who scored zero on phoneme
deletion.
At the same time, it is unlikely that the predictive strength
of the dynamic measure was merely an artifact of the ex-
panded scaling technique. Both invented spelling and fall
static phoneme segmentation (scored for number of sounds
correctly segmented) were nondichotomous scales that
awarded credit for partially correct responses. Constrained
variance clearly was not an issue for these two measures, yet
dynamic phoneme segmentation exceeded them both in fore-
casting growth in reading.
A more plausible version of the sensitivity account is that
the dynamic measure was simply a "cleaner" (Calfee, 1977,
p. 297) measure of phonemic awareness. Analysis of the static
conditions suggests the possibility that task demands unrelated
to phonemic awareness prevented many students from achiev-
ing greater success. For example, on both deletion and static
segmentation, some students may have had difficulty main-
taining the target word in working memory while relating in
order the sounds that they heard. In the dynamic condition,
on the other hand, the children were asked to identify the
initial sound only and were then asked for each succeeding
sound, prompting each response by repeating sounds that the
child had already given. The dynamic condition clearly placed
fewer demands on working memory than did the static seg-
mentation and deletion tests.
The predictive superiority of the dynamic measure over
invented spelling might also be explained by demands placed
on ancillary skills. Whereas 80% of the students were able in
the fall to identify most of the letters on the San Diego Quick
Assessment List letter recognition task, they might have been
considerably less knowledgeable regarding the relationship
between graphemes and phonemes. Also, they might not have
known how to form letters correctly. In other words, the
dynamic measure, in contrast to the static measures, might
have minimized the contribution to successful performance
of abilities other than phonemic awareness. Unfortunately, I
did not assess students' knowledge of individual letter-sound
correspondences or ask them to write the alphabet, so addi-
tional research is necessary to test the validity of this expla-
nation.
The second possible interpretation of the present results is
that the dynamic measure assessed a new ability: modifiability
of performance. As discussed above, the rationale underlying
many approaches to dynamic assessment is the Vygotskian
notion of zone of proximal development. Vygotsky (1935/
1978) used this term to refer to that area just beyond the
child's present capabilities on tests requiring independent
performance but within the child's capability when given
adult assistance or support.
According to Vygotsky (1935/1978), dynamic measures
allow observation of
those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process
of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are in
the embryonic stage. These functions could be called the "buds"
or "flowers" rather than the fruits of development. The actual
developmental level characterizes mental development retro-
spectively, while the zone of proximal development characterizes
mental development prospectively. (pp. 86-87)
In the present study, those students who benefited most
from the instructional cues and prompts during the dynamic
testing session were also the students who experienced the
most growth in word recognition during the kindergarten
year. From a Vygotskian perspective, the effectiveness of the
dynamic measure can be explained in terms of modifiability
of performance. That is, the dynamic measure assessed indi-
vidual differences in responsiveness to segmentation instruc-
tion.
The above interpretation, although attractive, requires fur-
ther investigation. Although the present results are congruent
with this account, the study was not designed specifically to
investigate why dynamic measures have greater predictive
validity than comparable static measures. In subsequent stud-
 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
ies researchers might consider use of structural equation mod-
eling, an approach recommended by Embretson (1987) for
testing hypotheses about the locus of dynamic effects. Em-
bretson's design specifications include both fall and spring
testing on (a) a dynamic measure, (b) a transfer task (e.g.,
word recognition), and (c) an irrelevant task (i.e., a task that
has elements in common with the dynamic task but that does
not tap the construct that the dynamic measure is hypothe-
sized to influence). This design would facilitate more complete
evaluation of the modifiability hypothesis.
The third possible explanation for the present results is that
participation in dynamic assessment actually changed the
child's readiness. That is, in teaching nonsegmenters how to
segment, the study effected long-term growth in phonemic
awareness and reading. I found this explanation attractive
initially, given the increase in number of words segmented
correctly from fall to spring. Mean performance on phoneme
segmentation rose from 12% accuracy in the fall to 50%
accuracy in the spring, whereas accuracy on phoneme deletion
only increased from 5% to 12%. On the other hand, the
relative improvement in phoneme segmentation over pho-
neme deletion is explained equally well by the demands of
the phoneme deletion and segmentation tasks themselves. As
other investigators have reported, phoneme deletion is a more
complex skill and one that develops later than phoneme
segmentation (e.g., Perfetti et al., 1987; Yopp, 1988). In other
words, the greater degree of improvement in segmentation
ability can be easily explained by developmental factors. The
results do not necessarily imply that participation in dynamic
assessment effected long-term improvement in phoneme seg-
mentation ability.
The training effects hypothesis is also called into question
by the results of experimental studies that have attempted to
teach segmentation skills. First, previous training studies sug-
gest that segmentation training is most effective when it is
accompanied by training in blending or spelling (Bradley &
Bryant, 1983; Fox & Routh, 1984; Williams, 1980; also see
discussions by Adams, 1990, pp. 328-332; Ehri, 1989; and
Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Therefore, the present condition
was not optimal for inducing long-term change. Second,
studies that have yielded successful results for phonemic
awareness training have taken place over longer periods of
time with more intensive treatment. Bradley and Bryant
(1983), for example, provided 40 training sessions over a 2-
year period (once or twice per week). Lundberg, Frost, and
Petersen (1988) carried out their phonemic awareness training
program over the entire kindergarten year, whereas Fox and
Routh (1984) conducted training sessions 4 to 5 days a week
(15 to 20 min) for 5 weeks. In contrast, a study that failed to
yield a main effect of segmentation-and-blending training was
conducted by Treiman and Baron (1983). The training took
place over a 4-day period, an amount of time that is more
similar to (but still four times greater than) the intervention
in this study.
I conclude, therefore, that the sensitivity and modifiability
explanations are more tenable than the training effects hy-
pothesis. The sensitivity account suggests that the dynamic
measure was a better predictor because it is a cleaner (or
truer) measure of phonemic awareness. The modifiability
361
account, which is the Vygotskian interpretation, proposes
that, in assessing responsiveness to instruction, the dynamic
measure is better able to forecast future growth in segmenta-
tion ability. Thus, a goal for subsequent research on dynamic
assessment is to disentangle what appear to be equally plau-
sible interpretations of its effectiveness.
Implications for Research and Practice
Clearly, there are unresolved issues surrounding dynamic
assessment. For example, How does one assess the reliability
of a dynamic measure? By its nature, dynamic assessment
induces change in the individual. Such change, in turn, re-
duces reliability as conceptualized by classical test theory (i.e.,
consistency or stability of measurement over time and items).
In her review of the psychometric challenges posed by dy-
namic assessment, Embretson (1987) provided some sugges-
tions for assessing the reliability and validity of dynamic
measures. More research is needed to document the effective-
ness of the recommended procedures and to establish stand-
ards for evaluating the technical adequacy of dynamic meas-
ures.
With respect to the dynamic measure developed for use in
the present study, further investigation is necessary to rule out
the possibility that the results were influenced by the order in
which the tasks were administered. Subsequent research
should also consider repeating the dynamic procedure in the
spring to permit more complete analysis of spring-to-spring
correlations.
Although the dynamic measure developed for use in this
study requires further scrutiny, the study suggests a number
of practical applications. One potential application is devel-
opment of a screening device to identify children in need of
instructional intervention to facilitate reading acquisition.
Although no test identified in this or any previous study has
accounted for enough variance in reading achievement to
stand alone as a screening measure, the dynamic measure of
phonemic awareness developed for purposes of this study has
advantages over previous measures. First, it is a better predic-
tor of reading progress. Second, in allowing the examiner to
observe the child's responsiveness to instructional prompts
and cues, the measure might be useful in identifying an
appropriate instructional approach to develop phonemic
awareness in each child. Finally, the present procedure does
not require extensive training on the part of the examiner and
can be administered in one 15- to 20-min session. For similar
reasons, the measure would also be valuable in research on
reading and phonemic awareness in which predictive strength
and ease of administration are critical.
The results of this study also suggest the benefits of devel-
oping dynamic measures for other phonemic awareness tasks,
such as invented spelling, or even for the criterion measure,
word recognition. Although the present findings support the
predictive validity of the dynamic phoneme segmentation
measure, it is possible that a dynamic measure of one of the
other phonemic awareness measures (e.g., invented spelling)
would prove to be an even better predictor of early reading
progress.
 362 JANET E. SPECTOR
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arthur, G. (1947). A point scale of performance tests. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning
to read—A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Bransford, J. C, Delclos, V. R., Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., & Hassel-
bring, T. S. (1987). State of the art and future directions. In C. S.
Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to
evaluating learning potential (pp. 479-496). New York: Guilford
Press.
Bruce, D. J. (1964). An analysis of word sounds by young children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 158-170.
Budoff, M. (1967). Learning potential among institutionalized young
adult retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72, 404-
411.
Budoff, M. (1987a). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C.
S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to
evaluation learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford
Press.
Budoff, M. (1987b). The validity of learning potential assessment. In
C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach
to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52-81). New York: Guilford
Press.
Burns, M. S. (1985). Comparison of "graduated prompt" and "media-
tional" dynamic assessment and static assessment with young chil-
dren (Tech. Rep. No. 2). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University,
John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Human Development.
Calfee, R. C. (1977). Assessment of independent reading skills: Basic
research and practical applications. In A. S. Reber & D. L. Scar-
borough (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading: Proceedings ofthe
City University of New York conferences (pp. 289-323). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Calfee, R. C, Chapman, R. S., & Venezky, R. L. (1972). How a child
needs to think to learn how to read. In L. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition
in learning and memory (pp. 139-182). New York: Wiley.
Calfee, R. C, Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, C. (1973). Acoustic-
phonetic skills and reading—Kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 293-298.
Campione, J. C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of ap-
proaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal oj
Learning Disabilities, 22, 151-165.
Campione, J. C, & Brown, A. L. (1985). Dynamic assessment: One
approach and some initial data (Tech. Rep. No. 361). Urbana, IL:
Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 269 735)
Campione, J. C, & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment
with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment:
An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-
115). New York: Guilford Press.
Campione, J. C, Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., Jones, R., & Steinberg,
E. (1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-
related differences in transfer following equivalent learning per-
formance. Intelligence, 9, 297-315.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the-limits
procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children
with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
82, 529-564.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1979). Toward a differential testing
approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven matrices. Intel-
ligence, 3, 323-344.
Chomsky, C. (1971). Write first, read later. Childhood Education, 47,
296-299.
Chomsky, C. (1979). Approaching reading through invented spelling.
In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of
early reading (Vol 2, pp. 43-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-
Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Ehri, L. C. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisi-
tion. In T. G. Waller & G. E. Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research:
Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 63-114). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Ehri, L. C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its
role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal ofLearn-
ing Disabilities, 22, 356-365.
Ehri, L. C, & Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of orthography on
readers' conceptualizations of the phonetic structure of words.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 371-385.
Ehri, L. C, & Wilce, L. S. (1987a). Cipher versus cue reading: An
experiment in decoding acquisition. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 79, 3-13.
Ehri, L. C, & Wilce, L. S. (1987b). Does learning to spell help
beginners learn to read words? Reading Research Quarterly, 18,
47-65.
Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative
reading (pp. 551-579). New York: Macmillan.
Embretson, S. E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric
approach. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional
approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141 -170). New York:
Guilford Press.
Ferrara, R. A, Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Children's
learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies in prox-
imal development. Child Development, 57, 1087-1099.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded perform-
ers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, theory, instruments,
and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1975). Analyzing spoken language into
words, syllables, and phonemes: A developmental study. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 331-342.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as
word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 1059-1064.
Goldstein, D. M. (1976). Cognitive-linguistic functioning and learn-
ing to read in preschoolers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 68,
680-688.
Golinkoff, R. M. (1978). Critique: Phonemic awareness skills and
reading achievement. In F. B. Murray & J. J. Pikulski (Eds.), The
acquisition of reading: Cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual prereq-
uisites (pp. 23-41). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Gough, P., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural
act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179-196.
Helfgott, J. A. (1976). Phonemic segmentation and blending skills of
kindergarten children: Implications for beginning reading acquisi-
tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 157-169.
Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recodingand reading
acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-147.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of
54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Kohs, S. C. (1923). Intelligence measurement. New York: Macmillan.
LaPray, M., & Ross, R. (1969). The graded word list: Quick gauge of
reading ability. Journal of Reading, 12, 305-307.
Lewkowicz, N. K. (1980). Phonemic awareness training: What to
teach and how to teach it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
686-700.
Liberman, I. Y. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading
acquisition. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 65-77.
Liberman, I. Y., Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle, J. (1985). Lin-
guistic abilities and spelling proficiency in kindergarteners and
adult poor spellers. In D. B. Gray & J. F. Kavanagh (Eds.),
Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia (pp. 163-176). Parkton, MD:
 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
York Press.
Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the
problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special
Education, 6, 8-17.
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974).
Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.
Lidz, C. S. (1981). Improving assessment of schoolchildren. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lidz, C. S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional
approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford
Press.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive
program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool chil-
dren. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.
Mann, V. A., Tobin, P., & Wilson, R. (1987). Measuring phonological
awareness through the invented spellings of kindergarten children.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 365-391.
Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor
of first-grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84,
441-457.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C , & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic
knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study
offirst-gradechildren. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.
Raven, J. C. (1956). Coloured progressive matrices. New York: Psy-
chological Corporation.
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children's knowledge of English phonol-
ogy. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1-34.
Read, C. (1986). Children's creative spellings. New York: Routledge,
Chapman & Hall.
Rosner, J., & Simon, D. (1971). The auditory analysis test: An initial
report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 384-392.
Rozin, P., & Gleitman, L. (1977). The structure and acquisition of
Appendix
Dynamic Assessment Task
Introductory Instructions to Students
"Do you remember the game we played last week with sounds? I
said a word and asked you to break the word apart. You had to tell
me each sound that you heard in the word. When I said 'old,' you
had to say 'o-l-d.' Let's try a few more."
General Procedures
Begin with Item No. 1 ("say") and continue through Item No. 12.
Whenever a child is unable to segment a word correctly, move the
child through the prompts (in order) until he or she produces the
correct segmentation. For example, if on Item No. 4, the child
achieves success on Prompt 2, move next to Item No. 5. If the child
cannot segment Item No. 5 on the first attempt, move the child
through the prompts again, beginning with Prompt 1. Discontinue
testing after the first 2 items if a child does not achieve success in
segmenting on either Item No. 1 or Item No. 2. Remember, a child
is considered successful if he or she responds correctly to any of the
prompts (including the 3 prompts that require imitation only).
Prompts
Prompt 1: "Listen while I say the word very slowly." Model slow
pronunciation.
"Now can you tell me each sound?"
Prompt 2: "What's the first sound you hear in ?"
If first sound is correct: "Now can you tell me each of the
sounds?"
363
reading II: The reading process and the acquisition of the alphabetic
principle. In A. Reber & D. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psy-
chology of reading (pp. 55-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984).
Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. B. (1984).
Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues
of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
29, 175-190.
Treiman, R., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps
children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory & Cognition,
11, 382-389.
Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation
skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
Ail-All.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding,
phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a lon-
gitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33,
321-363.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and develop-
ment. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman
(Eds. and Trans.), Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Original work published 1935).
Wagner, R. K.., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological
processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.
Psychological Bulletin, 10, 192-212.
Williams, J. P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on
phoneme analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 1-15.
Williams, J. P. (1984). Phonemic analysis and how it relates to
reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 240-245.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic aware-
ness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159-177.
If incorrect or no response: "Try to tell me just a little bit
of the word."
If child still does not isolate first sound, skip Prompts 3
and 4. Go to Prompt 5.
Prompt 3: If child correctly identified first sound but not next
sound(s):
" is the first sound in "
"What sound comes next?"
"Now can you tell me each sound?"
Prompt 4: "There are 2 [or 3] sounds in
What are they?"
Prompt 5: "Watch me." Model segmentation of word: Place a token
in a square as each sound is spoken, then repeat word as
a whole. After demo say the following: "Try to do what I
just did."
Score response as correct if child can imitate correct
segmentation.
Prompt 6: "Let's try together." Model segmentation of word with
child. Work hand-over-hand with child and ask child to
pronounce segments along with you.
"Now try to do it yourself. Do what we just did together."
Prompt 7: Model again with child. "Now try again to do it yourself."
Received March 4, 1991
Revision received January 8, 1992
Accepted January 27, 1992 •